Show us your Pugbashes, Nellieboshes, Desmondifications, Jintysteins

[33C]

3 minutes ago, TangoOscarMike said:

a modular kit

You mention "a modular kit". This sounds a great idea. A couple of stock bodies, (Tank, saddle, well or just boiler). Separate boiler mountings/fittings on a sprue. Sold together or separate, would cover a panopoly of classes. Even some colonial fittings, (Large Headlamps/cowcatchers.) would increase sales. Body interiors could have recessed guidlines, to show how much to cut out/away for your chosen 00/H0/009 chassis, so you would not have to faff about with body mounting points. Cab sides could be a large, flat, surface with fine lines prominent, to show cab design, and the purchaser cuts away until they have their required style. (The fine lines left are sanded smooth.) But, is this possible in the home printing world? Are YOU the next Kitmaster?!! (H0rn8y are nicking these ideas as i type, probably...)

[Hacksworth_Sidings]

2 minutes ago, 33C said:

Are YOU the next Kitmaster?!!

I did have an idea about the possibility of bringing back the lost K’master kits (the ones that haven’t been in production *since* 62), if at least one, good condition, unbuilt kit could be found for, well, any of the Kitmaster models where the toolings didn’t live past the Kitmaster brand’s fall (models like the Hudson, General, Garratt, Stirling, etc) then the parts could be digitally recreated and 3D printed.

 

Would it take loads of time and effort? Absolutely. Would the quality be significantly lower than that of injection moulded parts? No doubt about it! But would it be fun to see some sort of modern, easy(er) to acquire version of the kits? Definitely!

 

Would also open up possibilities to produce the kits that were announced, but never produced, or at least a loose interpretation of how they would’ve looked/gone together (Scotsman, S100, the big Canadian thing I forgot the name of…)

[009 micro modeller]

16 minutes ago, 33C said:

You mention "a modular kit". This sounds a great idea. A couple of stock bodies, (Tank, saddle, well or just boiler). Separate boiler mountings/fittings on a sprue. Sold together or separate, would cover a panopoly of classes. Even some colonial fittings, (Large Headlamps/cowcatchers.) would increase sales. Body interiors could have recessed guidlines, to show how much to cut out/away for your chosen 00/H0/009 chassis, so you would not have to faff about with body mounting points. Cab sides could be a large, flat, surface with fine lines prominent, to show cab design, and the purchaser cuts away until they have their required style. (The fine lines left are sanded smooth.) But, is this possible in the home printing world? Are YOU the next Kitmaster?!! (H0rn8y are nicking these ideas as i type, probably...)

Isn’t some of that quite close to how the GEM Varikit was supposed to work?

 

10 minutes ago, Hacksworth_Sidings said:

I did have an idea about the possibility of bringing back the lost K’master kits (the ones that haven’t been in production *since* 62), if at least one, good condition, unbuilt kit could be found for, well, any of the Kitmaster models where the toolings didn’t live past the Kitmaster brand’s fall (models like the Hudson, General, Garratt, Stirling, etc) then the parts could be digitally recreated and 3D printed.

 

Would it take loads of time and effort? Absolutely. Would the quality be significantly lower than that of injection moulded parts? No doubt about it! But would it be fun to see some sort of modern, easy(er) to acquire version of the kits? Definitely!

 

Would also open up possibilities to produce the kits that were announced, but never produced, or at least a loose interpretation of how they would’ve looked/gone together (Scotsman, S100, the big Canadian thing I forgot the name of…)

In some ways, would it perhaps be better to use the scanning and 3D printing process to create moulds, which could then be used to actually produce new injection moulded kits? If successful the same process could be applied to the kits that did survive into the current Dapol range but where the original tooling is starting to wear out.

 

From a personal point of view and in the context of this thread, the availability of a less rare and less valuable Stirling Single kit would open up some interesting and fun possibilities.

[33C]

13 minutes ago, Hacksworth_Sidings said:

(Scotsman, S100, the big Canadian thing I forgot the name of…)

Just body and tender mouldings, designed to fit on proprietary chassis. We only wanted to motorise them back in the day anyway! (New York Central Hudson)

[33C]

It occured to me that, in the spirit of the thread, a pack containing a crane jib, large buffers, side skirts, extra cab and pony trucks, would be a great compliment to the current, Dapol, "Pug" kit, as a taster for bashing....

[TangoOscarMike]

The problem, as I see it, is that there are plenty of resources for older (or more experienced) people, but nothing for a young (or inexperienced) modellers who want to dip a toe in the water.

 

There are numerous inexpensive tank and aeroplane kits, but no railway model equivalents. The remaining Kitmaster/Airfix/Dapol kits are fine for producing static models, but motorising them is not for beginners.

 

My stipulations for a beginner-friendly locomotive model kit are:

1. It has to work on a proprietary motorised chassis (alternatively, a kit could include a working chassis).
2. If a borrowed chassis is used, then as far as possible, it must be unmodified, so that the original body can be restored. People with reasonable incomes can buy plenty of second hand Smokey Joes, but people with only pocket money might not want to risk their one-and-only tank engine.
3. If a borrowed chassis is used, then it must be as cheap as possible.
4. Assembly must be straightforward - this suggests injection moulded polystyrene (and NOT whitemetal or etched brass!), but maybe other materials would be suitable.
5. Painting must be manageable - ideally the kit would include waterslide transfers or similar, just like a 1/72 aeroplane kit.

Unfortunately, the only R-T-R chassis that fits this description (somewhat) is the Hornby 0-4-0 Pug/101/etc. I say unfortunately because the motor mount is very wide, which makes it hard to design bodies (apart from side-tank bodies) that will fit.

 

My 3D printed bodies are a step in this direction (and others have taken similar steps, both on Shapeways and elsewhere) but we are still a long way from anything that satisfies my 5 stipulations.

 

[TangoOscarMike]

I've been rummaging on google and found this.

 

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/oo-ivor-the-engine

[33C]

51 minutes ago, TangoOscarMike said:

 

There are numerous inexpensive tank and aeroplane kits, but no railway model equivalents.

Agreed. e.g. Airfix Tiger Tank, and P1127 @ £6.99 each. Hornby, "Triang commemorative", 0-4-0T, £17.99. (For the chassis)

......i'm now thinking how to combine all three.....a vertical take-off, heavily armed, TANK locomotive.

New "BATTLESPACE" or the current "Thomas" cartoon...bedtime methinks...

[Hacksworth_Sidings]

7 hours ago, TangoOscarMike said:

Unfortunately, the only R-T-R chassis that fits this description (somewhat) is the Hornby 0-4-0 Pug/101/etc. I say unfortunately because the motor mount is very wide, which makes it hard to design bodies (apart from side-tank bodies) that will fit.

The old Triang 0-4-0 chassis would be a decent one to try… Much slimmer motor profile & mounting, so you could get away with a slimmer model, only major modification you’d need to make would be the addition of scale wheels (even then, you could always reprofile/grind down the bulky Triang flanges for use on code 100).

[Hacksworth_Sidings]

11 hours ago, TangoOscarMike said:

The remaining Kitmaster/Airfix/Dapol kits are fine for producing static models, but motorising them is not for beginners.

 

I personally argue against that…

 

The BoB is a good drop-fit on the Triang Princess chassis, the Prairie looks decent on a modified Jinty chassis (B12 is a better, closer to “scale” alternative), the School, with some modification, looks great on the L1 chassis, Triang chassis’s are so easy to strip down and rebuild that you can do basically whatever with them if you find them for cheap!

 

[TangoOscarMike]

2 hours ago, Hacksworth_Sidings said:

The old Triang 0-4-0 chassis would be a decent one to try… Much slimmer motor profile & mounting, so you could get away with a slimmer model, only major modification you’d need to make would be the addition of scale wheels (even then, you could always reprofile/grind down the bulky Triang flanges for use on code 100).

 

I should have said - "... the only R-T-R chassis that fits this description and is currently manufactured...". My target 12-year-old doesn't have the knowledge/experience/money/driving-license for scouring flea markets and Ebay for the right chassis, and maybe making a working chassis out of three non-runners. There are certainly some enterprising 12-year-olds who can do these things (and the Internet helps these days). But I'm aiming for the lowest common denominator: an un-enterprising 12-year-old living miles from the nearest shop (myself, in other words).

 

From this perspective, a working chassis is a precious, scarce resource. Let us suppose that exactly one working chassis is available, and the number is permanent and fixed. The project must not require the modification of the chassis because:

1. It must be possible to get back to the original working state with the original locomotive body.
2. We must minimise the risk of turning the chassis into a non-runner.

It is the combination of these factors and the price that make the Hornby 0-4-0 chassis the only option, from my perspective.

 

But you're absolutely right - a (normal/traditional) chassis, with the motor completely between the wheels, would be far better. The basic form of this chassis is perfect.

 

The Hornby Peckett chassis would be better, a low-end Hornby 0-6-0 chassis would be fine, a Bachmann Percy chassis would be fine. But all of these things are a step up in price (certainly when new) from the Holden and its cousins.

 

If my hypothetical kit maker also supplied a chassis (sold separately) then all these problems would evaporate. One cheap-ish chassis, plus 4 cheap-ish modular superstructure kits (covering a few different locomotive types) could produce a couple of failures and a couple of nice working models. This would bring the whole activity back into model Spitfire territory "I made a mess of the paint job, but it doesn't really matter" versus "I took the wheels off, and now I can't get it working again".

 

[TangoOscarMike]

24 minutes ago, Hacksworth_Sidings said:

I personally argue against that…

 

The BoB is a good drop-fit on the Triang Princess chassis, the Prairie looks decent on a modified Jinty chassis (B12 is a better, closer to “scale” alternative), the School, with some modification, looks great on the L1 chassis, Triang chassis’s are so easy to strip down and rebuild that you can do basically whatever with them if you find them for cheap!

 

What you're showing here requires more skill, boldness and better resourcing than my reference pre-teen can muster. I know that some people (of all ages) can step straight into the hobby at this level and achieve a success, a failure and two successes in short order. But I regard this as fairly advanced modelling.

 

My 12-year-old is, frankly, a bit gormless (I don't mind insulting him, because he's me!). Such people need a little bit more help dipping their toes in the water. And if everything (except glue and paint) comes in a single box, then their chances of success are much higher.

 

[33C]

Imagine "starter sets", containing chassis, choice of bodies, (steam or diesel), pack of options and paint, glue, brush and transfers. How much? £20-25 fair? Some great artwork on the header and, in a blister pack style, Airfix style, so you see what your getting. Almost a CKD or pocket money kit. (Hornby can nick this idea...)

[Hacksworth_Sidings]

Been thinking on it, and I may have had another idea for this bodykit you’re developing… Would an alternate variant of the body be available, to take the pre-moulded cylinders of the 101 chassis? Or has it be designed with the D tank/0-4-0 E2 chassis in mind? (The same chassis, but without the pre-moulded cylinders)

 

Oooh, there’s another idea… Custom con rods and crossheads? A bit of wire/metal bar sourced from elsewhere to use as the slidebars and the actual piston, use an appropriately sized screw/bolt to hold the crosshead to the connecting rod… Would be a better looking alternative to the, quite frankly, awful looking cylinders and rods that Hornby gives as part of the ready to run model.

 

Edit: Just gone and drawn up an example of what I mean, the slidebars and piston are shaded grey, and would be made by glueing pieces of metal bar or wire into the 3D printed parts (slidebars are glued to the steam chest through moulded pilot holes in the cylinder, likewise with the piston into the crosshead, or leave it without the piston and have it look like one of Graham Farish’s OO locos!)

 

Edited April 14 by Hacksworth_Sidings

[TangoOscarMike]

10 minutes ago, Hacksworth_Sidings said:

Been thinking on it, and I may have had another idea for this bodykit you’re developing… Would an alternate variant of the body be available, to take the pre-moulded cylinders of the 101 chassis? Or has it be designed with the D tank/0-4-0 E2 chassis in mind? (The same chassis, but without the pre-moulded cylinders)

 

Thus far, I have designed four conversions (side-tank, saddle-tank and two tender engines) for the outside-cylinder version of the chassis, and one tender engine for the inside-cylinder version. These are here and here (I haven't got around to making the streamliner available for sale yet).

 

The outside cylinder tank engines simply use the existing cylinders, whereas the tender engines have wrappers around the cylinders.

 

The tank engines are my earliest and least satisfactory designs. I'm hoping to replace them (hence the saddle tank above).

 

33 minutes ago, Hacksworth_Sidings said:

Oooh, there’s another idea… Custom con rods and crossheads? A bit of wire/metal bar sourced from elsewhere to use as the slidebars and the actual piston, use an appropriately sized screw/bolt to hold the crosshead to the connecting rod… Would be a better looking alternative to the, quite frankly, awful looking cylinders and rods that Hornby gives as part of the ready to run model.

 

Indeed. I could certainly violate my ban on chassis modification for these purposes (provided it did not alter the outside shape of the cylinders). The slot in the cylinder is quite large, so I think there is room in there for a 3D printed part, which could be the basis and anchor for the rest of the mechanism.

 

I have produced a few sketches, but so far nothing more.

[33C]

5 hours ago, TangoOscarMike said:

are here and here (I haven't got around to making the streamliner available for sale yet

That's the kind of thing that could reinvigorate the trade. I love it, kids should love it, roaring around at 100mph! A shed full, in all different colours, eye-catching too. As a body/tender "kit", keeping costs low, and/or to be the add-on to juniors first train set, even as an armoured train, to introduce the "vintage classics" kits to a child's play, and making the triptych of rail, road and air!

Could, at a stretch, encourage learning if the packaging had a potted history of the real thing and suggested liveries and other products to incorporate in play, like the old Matchbox kit boxes that used every surface for information and were artistic and genius.

[009 micro modeller]

3 hours ago, 33C said:

Could, at a stretch, encourage learning if the packaging had a potted history of the real thing and suggested liveries and other products to incorporate in play, like the old Matchbox kit boxes that used every surface for information and were artistic and genius.

Are they prototype-based or freelance though, as envisaged by @TangoOscarMike?

 

22 hours ago, TangoOscarMike said:

The problem, as I see it, is that there are plenty of resources for older (or more experienced) people, but nothing for a young (or inexperienced) modellers who want to dip a toe in the water.

 

There are numerous inexpensive tank and aeroplane kits, but no railway model equivalents. The remaining Kitmaster/Airfix/Dapol kits are fine for producing static models, but motorising them is not for beginners.

 

My stipulations for a beginner-friendly locomotive model kit are:

1. It has to work on a proprietary motorised chassis (alternatively, a kit could include a working chassis).
2. If a borrowed chassis is used, then as far as possible, it must be unmodified, so that the original body can be restored. People with reasonable incomes can buy plenty of second hand Smokey Joes, but people with only pocket money might not want to risk their one-and-only tank engine.
3. If a borrowed chassis is used, then it must be as cheap as possible.
4. Assembly must be straightforward - this suggests injection moulded polystyrene (and NOT whitemetal or etched brass!), but maybe other materials would be suitable.
5. Painting must be manageable - ideally the kit would include waterslide transfers or similar, just like a 1/72 aeroplane kit.

Unfortunately, the only R-T-R chassis that fits this description (somewhat) is the Hornby 0-4-0 Pug/101/etc. I say unfortunately because the motor mount is very wide, which makes it hard to design bodies (apart from side-tank bodies) that will fit.

 

My 3D printed bodies are a step in this direction (and others have taken similar steps, both on Shapeways and elsewhere) but we are still a long way from anything that satisfies my 5 stipulations.

 

I remember we discussed something similar in a previous thread. In narrow gauge modelling, there are a couple of options that provide some elements of what you describe, though not all.

 

Firstly there’s the Smallbrook example, as I mentioned in the other thread. Many of them run on Hornby 0-4-0 chassis, they are fairly simple to build and there are a number of different designs. I understand that there is some level of modularity/interchangeability between some of the components as well (e.g. I think some of the Gn15 ones partially use castings that are also used in multiple locos in the 016.5 range). However, for a beginner (especially a child) I’m not sure that resin (as opposed to injection-moulded plastic etc.) is necessarily the best or safest material to use, while as I recall some (though not all) of the kits require the cylinders to be hacked off the Hornby chassis to accept the kit cylinders (which are designed to easily accept the ends of the rods). Other than those two considerations it’s pretty much there, though seemingly relatively expensive nowadays.

 

The other thing that springs to mind is the extensive use of the Kato 11-109/110 (and their predecessors, the 11-103/104) and other variants in 009. The current generation of these are slightly more expensive than the old ones (I think due to the coreless motors that they now have) but still quite cheap. There are now a number of 3D-printed bodies available for these chassis, but people also scratch-build or kitbash their own. To go back to your hypothetical consumer for this sort of thing, this is the sort of kit-bashing or building in 009 I did when I was about 12, I just needed a bit of help to make a footplate cut-out to allow the finished loco to clip onto the Kato chassis securely. But I see that you can now buy a 3D-printed footplate (not a complete body) that does this, onto which you can then presumably build whatever you wish. There are also simple etched brass kits that fit the same chassis, so if you wanted to you could later teach yourself to solder by building one. The drawback is that the locos must be either diesel, electric or steam fitted with tram skirts in order to use the Kato chassis. Also in some cases the 3D prints seem to almost be too straightforward, not really a kit in the sense of a Dapol/Airfix/Kitmaster loco minus the chassis but sometimes just 2 pieces (body and footplate) with most of the work left to do being painting and finishing. It’s perhaps catering to a slightly different market - rather than a child or adult beginner looking to build something for themselves and improve their skills (as in your example), some of these seem to be aimed more at people who have moved from RTR 00 or N and need a loco that is almost but not quite RTR, given the relative lack of reasonably-priced RTR in 009.

 

I’m not sure how easy to use 3D-printed stuff is compared to moulded plastic, though it seems sometimes to be harder to paint (this is not to detract from your 3D-print designs, which I think are superb, it’s just in relation to your general comment about what materials might be suitable for something like this).

 

10 hours ago, TangoOscarMike said:

I should have said - "... the only R-T-R chassis that fits this description and is currently manufactured...". My target 12-year-old doesn't have the knowledge/experience/money/driving-license for scouring flea markets and Ebay for the right chassis, and maybe making a working chassis out of three non-runners. There are certainly some enterprising 12-year-olds who can do these things (and the Internet helps these days). But I'm aiming for the lowest common denominator: an un-enterprising 12-year-old living miles from the nearest shop (myself, in other words).

This is a really important point and again there’s an example from narrow gauge modelling to back it up. Lots of whitemetal body kits available in 009 were designed ages ago for chassis that are now long out of production. Often these are rare and sometimes they can become expensive, as everyone else is looking for one for their loco body kit as well. Even if they’re relatively easy to find, the surviving chassis will mainly be pretty knackered by now, or in some cases were just awful in the first place. So in that context I’d probably want to avoid designing a new kit to fit a chassis that I know is already out of production.

 

 I’m not so sure about the idea of making a specific chassis and supplying it with the kit as presumably this would add to the overall cost. Though it would allow you to specify the wheelbase etc. for a more accurate model.

 

10 hours ago, TangoOscarMike said:

This would bring the whole activity back into model Spitfire territory "I made a mess of the paint job, but it doesn't really matter" versus "I took the wheels off, and now I can't get it working again".

Yes, because it’s the operational aspect of model railways that makes this a more involved process than it is for some other model-making hobbies. If you can help with some of that then it opens up another side of the hobby for people.

[Hacksworth_Sidings]

Started tossing together this… Thing last night…

 

 

Boredom and a surplus of parts do wonders to the mind… Body is from a Thomas & Friends toy of the character “Stepney”, chassis is a trimmed-down Hornby 0-4-0 with an Airfix Prairie tank’s bogie…

 

Debating… 0-4-2 or 2-4-0? Looks awful either way! 🤪

 

2-4-0 would at least be somewhat prototypical…

[33C]

59 minutes ago, Hacksworth_Sidings said:

Debating… 0-4-2 or 2-4-0? Looks awful either way!

0-4-2 looks OK, 2-4-0 looks a bit anorexic.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, 33C said:

0-4-2 looks OK, 2-4-0 looks a bit anorexic.

Agreed, plus the driving wheels further forward allows more room for the firebox.

[Ben B]

0-4-2 with new splashers, for my money. I think it looks like it has potential! Is it one of the plastic Thomas toys, a magazine partwork issue one? I had a Boco and Daisy which were part-converted for 009 way back, might still have them up in the loft somewhere...

 

 

[33C]

2 hours ago, Ben B said:

in the loft somewhere.

"Free the loft two!"

[Ben B]

1 minute ago, 33C said:

"Free the loft two!"

 

If I can get up there before the bats arrive back. Most spring/summer periods we end up with bats in the proverbial belfry, which I don't mind much... until I come to do some model making and realise the thing I need is stuck in a box in Dracula country ;)

[33C]

"Batman returns" to the loft?

 

Garlic bread?

[Halvarras]

Some more Tri-ang and Hornby Dublo chassis and parts up for grabs at Elaine's emporium this morning:

 

https://elaines-trains.co.uk/index.php?pg=new

 

Keeping an eye on Elaine's Trains website has become my new 'addiction' following the loss of Hattons, because you never know what's going to appear.......such as that Tri-ang clockwork NBL shunter body I mentioned last Thursday. Probably the wrong course of action then for somebody desperately trying to avoid adding new projects to The Pile..........🤭 

However from time to time parts come up which could assist with completing projects already in that Pile and push them along the path to completion - that's my excuse anyway!